Posted by Tina
Just when you thought the democrat apologists were right when they say that the President and leadership of the Democrat Party are not socialists, one of the parties biggest supporters (moneybags) is taking action to destroy a private network that is just a little too successful and won’t tow the progressive line:
They’ve tried and failed repeatedly to install the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as a means of using the government to silence conservatives, now a George Soros-connected “ethics” group is taking another route to censorship.
The Hill reports that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is asking the Federal Communications to cancel Fox’s broadcasting licenses in the United States because of the phone hacking scandal involving a newspaper owned by a sister company utterly separate from it in the United Kingdom.
Calling CREW merely an “ethics watchdog group,” The Hill reports that CREW “sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Tuesday, arguing that U.S. law states that broadcast airwaves shall only be licensed to people of ‘good character’ and used ‘in the public interest’.”
It should be noted: “…even liberal media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times routinely label CREW as a “liberal watchdog group” or as “Democratic-leaning,” “left-leaning” or “progressive.”
Yep…that’s what we thought. They do not tolerate other points of view and when it appears that others are winning thje argument they seek to destroy. Saul Alinsky, still alive and kicking.
There are groups on both sides of the political divide who are constantly pressuring the FCC to restrict speech they don’t like. When I was growing up I mostly heard about conservative groups trying to get the FCC to fine people or revoke licenses over profanity, sexuality, or even same-sex kisses appearing on TV. I don’t think this is evidence that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are a bunch of socialists, any more than the efforts of the American Family Association prove that Republicans are a bunch of fascists.
This effort is not to restrict offensive speech or images.
This effort is to demonize and completely silence a competing network.
How does wanting to get rid of Fox News make them socialist?
It doesn’t make them socialist; it is an indication of their socialist methods.
Socialist always seek to control and manage the media. One way to do that is to eliminate media with alternate or dissenting opinions, particularly if they have become influential.
Pravda is an example of controlled media; it was the soviet socialist newspaper of record. News out of the West was forbidden.
Tina:”This effort is not to restrict offensive speech or images. This effort is to demonize and completely silence a competing network.”
Of course it is both. The people who want the FCC license taken away see the speech and images delivered by FOX News as offensive.
The way you draw imaginary, artificial distinctions between the actions of people you like, and the same exact actions taken by people you don’t like, is really transparent.
Silencing speech by eliminating the competition is completely reprehensible and mirrors the soviets, the Chinese, and other Marxist governments who used muscle to control the narrative (propaganda tactic). It is especially reprehensible since this is the same party that is not offended by explicitly sexual information given to young children as part of the school curriculum. The leftist response to objections about offensive content from religious groups for porn and music that calls for the death of police officers or the rape of women is, “turn it off.” (We control things; you don’t have a voice)
The “artificial distinctions” couldn’t be more evident.
Pompously insisting you hold the highest level of integrity when clearly you choose to ignore the overall rot at the head and support groups of the party you support is transparent.
Tina, I don’t support this cause or the group calling for the FCC license to be revoked. For once I can agree that these actions ARE similar to those of Communist regimes. But you’re trying to use guilt by association to tie their actions to Obama and Democrats in general, when they have not supported these measures either. In addition, you’re ignoring that many conservative groups, such as the American Family Association, have used similar methods. And not just with sexually explicit material, but with things as innocuous as positive representations of same-sex couples in TV and movies. That’s where I think you’re being unfair. You use this group to paint your political opposition with a broad brush, but you wouldn’t apply the same broad brush to the “Big Tent” of the Republican party due to the actions of the AFA.
It isn’t guilt by association when Obama and Democrats have looked for ways to bring back the Fairness Doctrine or implement other methods of shutting down talk radio:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html
There is good reason to associate Obama and the leadership of the Democrat with this!
What method has the American Family Association used that is similar to trying to get a networks license revolked?
How am I being unfair? We are not talking about positive representations of same sex couples or what another group has done to protest or ban it so you don’t know what I would say about that and I wouldn’t comment without details.
I’m not painting with a broad brush; I am being quite specific. The parties involved are named. they support the President. It’s an election year. Obama and leadership in his administration have attempted to silence talk radio using the FCC. They have targeted FOX News and FOX News shows for destruction. In short they are not contenet to compete in the arena of ideas…they seek to dominate by destroying, as Obama described us, the “enemy”.
I have been careful about discerning between Democrat voters and the leadership and specific support groups of the Democrat Party. I name them specifically when I object to their positions and tactics.
Socialist methods of controlling the media? Socialists always seek to control the media.
Did I miss something? Is this one of those comedy blogs?
Socialism has to do with economics, not the media. You are thinking of authoritarians, I think. Authoritarians always seek to control the media, not socialists.
Question writes:
“Authoritarians always seek to control the media, not socialists.”
Socialist are authoritarians…you know that.
47 Years Ago….Amazing Prediction
Do any of you remember the famous ABC radio news commentator Paul Harvey? Millions of Americans listened to his programs which were broadcast over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
When you listen to it, remember the commentary was broadcast 47 years ago…. April 3, 1965.
It’s short… less than 3 minutes.
http://youtu.be/H3Az0okaHig
Tina, while I am unsure about using the government to enforce “localism,” I think there’s a big difference between supporting a measure such as this and demanding that the government take away a station’s license.
Even the Fairness Doctrine, which I do not support, doesn’t really “shut down” anyone; it requires “equal time,” meaning that both liberal views and conservative views would be represented. Of course, I don’t really think the government should be trusted to ensure that “equal time” is given, but your claims that it would completely shut down talk radio are overblown and untrue. Conservative talk radio existed when the Fairness Doctrine was around, it just wasn’t the only thing that existed as it practically is now, thus it’s influence was less than it is today.
A few quotes from the American Thinker piece you cite are especially ridiculous:
“Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming.”
Is anyone expected to believe this? No evidence is provided to justify this claim.
“Localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken.”
Ha! This is one of those bizarre statements that reveals the extreme cognitive dissonance, the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach to the AT’s critiques of Obama. One second, he’s a vocal Marxist who publicly advocates for a radical progressive Utopia. The next, he’s a quiet, secretive man, who hides his real plans for the transformation behind a cloak of silence.
Of course, the claim that “localism is one of the rare issues on which Obama himself has been outspoken” is not only factually untrue, but ridiculously so. Ask most informed people what issues Obama has been outspoken about, and they can probably name several: health care reform, higher taxes for the rich, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…almost no one would reply “localism.” But the American Thinker says this in order to imply that Obama is secretive about most political issues, thus feeding into the “What do we REALLY know about Barack Obama?” narrative, while at the same time answering the question with, “We know he’s a Commie!” I have to admit, it’s an impressive move, and done so subtly in this instance that I almost didn’t even notice it.
“What method has the American Family Association used that is similar to trying to get a networks license revolked?”
I was surprised to find that the AFA mostly sticks to boycotts, not efforts to ban. However, the group has been involved in many instances of book-banning in public and school libraries, showing their commitment to free speech to be a sham. They’ve also argued that Muslims should be banned from the military, showing that they also have no respect for religious freedom:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-military
But my point is that efforts to ban speech that a group doesn’t like is not a one-party problem; never has been, never will be. On the left it’s called socialism, on the right it’s called fascism.
I do think you’re painting with a broad brush, and you are reaching to connect measures like localism and the Fairness Doctrine, which existed in some form in America in the earliest days of TV and radio, with efforts to shut down an entire network. I think it would be equally unfair of me to associate you with the bigots in the AFA.
Chris my claim that the fairness doctrine would shut down talk radio is true. Air America, and other leftist radio bids for equal time, have not succeeded. If station managers are compelled by FCC rules to organize content based not on demand (what programs the public supports) but instead based on what a local boards demand, radio will go back to airing shows that feature nonpolitical content. That is exactly what they did under the fairness doctrine to avoid controversy and lawsuits.
The left has plenty of ways to get their message out, including on radio (NPR). That is the station that liberals prefer and it serves them well.
The idea to change FCC rules, referred to as “localism” is not an idea to create fairness or equal time…it is an idea to silence opposition voices. Obama has not been vocal about this since the election, the feed back from the right was HUGE, but it could be one of the things he refers to when he talks about a second term and says things like…my work isn’t finished.
He was vocal about it before the last election and early in 2008:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566
To my knowledge there haven’t been elected Republicans plotting with Christian Right groups to burn books or remove liberal talkers from radio. Some have questioned whether NPR and PBS should be subsidized when they have plenty of supporters and corporate donations and make a lot of money from, for instance, Big Bird. The last paragraph in the above posting does show, however, that the Christian left HAS attempted to silence talk radio in conjunction with elected leaders, including the President.
I am not engaging in broad brush rhetoric. I am being quite specific!